Bill Summary – FastDemocracy

Committee on Children
                           JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
    Bill No.: HB-6511
               AN ACT REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR YOUTH SPORTS
        Title: COACHES, TRAINERS AND INSTRUCTORS.
 Vote Date: 3/11/2021
Vote Action: Joint Favorable Substitute
   PH Date: 3/2/2021
    File No.:
Disclaimer: The following JOINT FAVORABLE Report is prepared for the benefit of the
members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and
explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber
thereof for any purpose.
SPONSORS OF BILL:
Committee on Children
Rep. Lucy Dathan, 142nd Dist.
Rep. Mary Welander, 114th Dist.
Rep. Edwin Vargas, 6th Dist.
Rep. Robin E. Comey, 102nd Dist.
Rep. Gary A. Turco, 27th Dist.
Rep. Josh Elliott, 88th Dist.
Rep. Robert Sanchez, 25th Dist.
Rep. Jaime S. Foster, 57th Dist.
Rep. Greg S. Howard, 43rd Dist.
Sen. Saud Anwar, 3rd Dist.
REASONS FOR BILL:
In order to better prevent any incidents from happening involving the youth of Connecticut,
this bill would require prospective instructors (who are eighteen and older) of youth athletics
in any capacity, to submit to a comprehensive background check.
On line 5 language is added for structural reasons of the document, referencing two other
additions later in the document.
On line 45 subsection (d) is added in order to determine that youth athletic activity also
includes an organized athletic activity involving participants less than seven years of age. It
also determines that any person applying for an instructor position of a youth athletic activity
must submit a background check, to be completed not later than five business days after
receipt of the request for such background check.
On line 71 subsection (e) is added in order to better explain the requirements of a
background check, previously mentioned in subsection (d).
On line 76 subsection (f) is added in order to explain that any person who is eighteen years of
age or older and applies for a position as a coach, instructor or athletic trainer for a youth
athletic activity in the state shall not be required to submit to such background checks if such
person meet certain requirement set in this subsection.
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
No response from administration/agency for this bill
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
Wayne B. Moss Executive Director of the National Council of Youth Sports: Wayne
Moss testified in support of this bill though requests some changes to it. He requests that:
    The background check requirements allow for background checks that are deemed
     an acceptable alternative to fingerprinting and align with the important national youth
     protection standards, established by NCYS.
    That proposed HB 6511 legislation be amended to allow for background checks that
     are deemed an acceptable alternative to fingerprinting, and that ideally include (at a
     minimum) the following search components:
        1. Social Security Number validation;
        2. Name and address history records;
        3. Multi-Jurisdictional Criminal Database searches covering 50 states plus DC,
            Guam, and Puerto Rico;
        4. County Criminal Records for each name used and county where the individual
            currently lives or has lived during at least the past five years, going back the
            length of time records are available and reportable for each county searched;
        5. National Sex Offender Registry database search of all available states, plus
            DC, Guam, and Puerto Rico;
        6. Multiple National Watch Lists
His reason for requesting such a change was that he believes it is best if Connecticuts state
requirements were to be aligned with the high national safety standards.
Connecticut Conference of Municipalities (CCM): The conference testified in support of
this bill, but it has some concerns:
    With the proposed language, especially the provisions that restrict a municipalities
     ability to send out an RFP to contract out for the fingerprinting initiative outlined in the
                                                                           Page 2 of 4 HB-6511
     bill and forces municipalities to use the state as the sole provider of fingerprinting
     services.
    With the fact that the language of the bill will create staffing problems because of the
     delays associated in the turnaround of results processed by the state.
The conference requests:
    The committee to give the municipality the flexibility to purchase these on the open
     market due to the increased costs alongside the pandemic economic effect could
     affect the business as well as communities who are not able to afford much.
John Cattelan, Connecticut Alliance of YMCAs: John Cattelan testified in favor of this bill
though he requested that the fingerprinting requirement be removed because of the time it
would take - The season at the YMCAs is already over in eight weeks, when the background
check is completed.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
Kelly McConney Moore, Interim Senior Policy Council for the American Civil Liberties
Union of Connecticut: Kelly Moore testified in opposition of this bill. She states that:
    This bill will have an unintended side effect of targeting black and latinx community
     members who have been incarcerated in the past. By requiring instructors to have a
     complex background check done, employers could potentially use their incarceration
     period as an excuse to discriminate against them.
    She proposes that operators of youth camps utilize a balancing test like the one in
     Section 46a-80 of the general statutes. In addition, she also encourages the
     Committee to also oppose House Bill 6511 unless it is amended to include
     consideration of these factors.
Valerie Stolfi Collins, Executive Director of the Connecticut Recreation Parks
Association: Valerie Collins testified in opposition of this bill. Her reasoning for her
positioning was because:
    Such a bill limits a municipalitys ability to conduct an RFP process to contract out
     with a third-party entity and receive competitive pricing, it pigeonholes municipalities
     into a fixed, statutorily set cost of $88.00 which can increase at any time.
    Due to COVID there was a shortage of income and an increase of investment,
     therefore municipalities do not have the resources to comply with this new unfunded
     mandate at this time.
    This bill will likely increase the per-person program registration fee and decrease the
     availability of access to affordable recreational opportunities furthering the income
     divide with regard to access to sports.
                                                                           Page 3 of 4 HB-6511
   Most of CRPAs coaches work as a secondary job during nights and weekends and
    are not able to get the fingerprinting done.
   The time frame given in section f subsection (1) does not give sufficient time for a
    returning coach to complete another background check. Value gives an example
    saying that if a basketball coach may only be employed for 3 months and then has 9
    months of separation. Therefore, the number of days should be no less than 280
    days.
   The turnaround time on the results of the state police fingerprinting is over 8 weeks
    and the turnaround time for the DCF is 4 weeks, and recreation departments do not
    have enough paid coaches on staff to ensure that everyone whose results are pending
    are supervised by someone whose results are returned as cleared. She further states
    that if this bill passes, there will be an increased demand and therefore an increase in
    timeframe as well.
Reported by: Gabriela Dos Santos                     Date: March 20th 2021
                                                                     Page 4 of 4 HB-6511
Statutes affected: 
Raised Bill: 
KID Joint Favorable Substitute: 
File No. 166: 
APP Joint Favorable: 